Mere allegation

Is a Muslim convert who got married twice not liable for bigamy because of his religion? This is the issue answered in this case of Neil.

On April 6, 1999 Neil got married to Susan, whom he met in Saudi Arabia while she was working there as a staff midwife in a naval base hospital. They got married at a Christian church in San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. In their marriage contract, it is indicated that Neil was a “Catholic Pentecostal.” After their marriage, the couple returned to Saudi Arabia where Susan continued working as staff midwife. Not long after, however, Neil left her in Saudi and came back to the Philippines.

Back here in the Philippines, Neil happened to meet once more his childhood friend and neighbor, Tina. That meeting eventually turned into romance until the two got married on Dec. 8, 2001 at a restaurant in Quezon City. In their marriage certificate it is indicated that Neil was a Catholic and that he was still single. After their marriage, however, Tina learned that Neil was a Muslim convert way back in 1992, so they also got married in Muslim rites.

While still working in the Saudi hospital, Susan heard rumors that Neil had another wife. So because of anxiety and stress, she left Saudi and returned to the Philippines. Back here Susan learned of the second marriage of Neil to Tina sometime in November 2003 when she secured a certification of the civil status of Neil from the National Statistics Office (NSO) showing the dates and places of the two marriages contracted by Neil.

Susan allegedly confronted Tina, who supposedly admitted to her that she knew of Neil’s first marriage but still married him. Susan eventually filed a complaint for bigamy against Neil and Tina before the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office who, after preliminary investigation, filed the necessary Information on Aug. 24, 2004 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) charging the two with the crime of bigamy under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code.

For his defense, Neil admitted having contracted two marriages. But he claimed that he was a Muslim convert way back on Jan. 10, 1992 even prior to his first marriage to Susan. As a Muslim convert, he is allegedly entitled to marry four wives as allowed under the Islam religion. To prove that he is a Muslim convert he presented a Certificate of Conversion which he obtained only in August 2004 when a complaint for bigamy had already been filed by Susan.

For her part, Tina claimed that she was only a victim in this incident of bigamous marriage because when she got married to Neil she thought he was single and a Catholic. She alleged that she only came to know of his first marriage when a complaint was filed against her. She denied having been confronted by Susan and admitting to the latter that she knew of Neil’s first marriage to Susan. Were Neil and Tina guilty?

The RTC, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court ruled that only Neil is guilty of bigamy. The circumstances in this case satisfy all the elements of bigamy: (1) Neil is legally married to Susan; (2) their marriage has not been legally dissolved prior to the date of the second marriage; (3) Neil admitted the existence of his second marriage to Tina and (4) Neil and Tina’s marriage has all the requisites for validity except for lack of capacity of Neil due to his prior marriage to Susan.

Granting that Neil is indeed of Muslim faith at the time of celebration of both marriages, he cannot deny that both marriages were not conducted in accordance with the Code of Muslim Personal Laws and Presidential Decree 1083. Under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws (Article 13 [2]), in case of a marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, solemnized not in accordance with Muslim law or this code, the Family Code of the Philippines or Executive Order No. 209 (FC), in lieu of the Civil Code of the Philippines, shall apply. And under the FC Neil’s marriage to Tina is a bigamous marriage. Neil’s religious affiliation is therefore a non-issue. Thus regardless of his professed religion, Neil cannot claim exemption from liability for the crime of bigamy.

Tina, however, cannot be held guilty. The allegation that she knew of the first marriage of Neil to Susan is a mere allegation of Susan that has not been proven by sufficient evidence. Every circumstance favoring the accused’s innocence must be taken into account; proof against her must survive the test of reason and the strongest suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment.

So Tina is acquitted but Neil is sentenced to a prison term of two years and one day as minimum to eight years and one day as maximum (Nollora, Jr. vs. People, G.R. 191425, Sept. 7, 2011, 657 SCRA, 330).

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]